S.K. Sharma, J.-This appeal has been filed by the above three appellants against the judgment dated 3.8.1993 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 339/142 of 198 /1990 by which they have been convicted under section 323/34 of the Indian penal Code and have been sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for, six months each. 2. The case of the prosecution has come through the statement of P.W. 8 Mangeshwar Yadav whereby he alleged that his father-in-law Aklu Mahto of the same village had 8 kathas of land in plot no. 33 and he gifted the said land to his son Bhairu Yadav by a registered deed of gift because his father-in-law has no male issue. On 6.1.1989 at 3.00 P.M. while he, his son Bhairu Yadav (P.W. 6) and his nephew Gopal Yadav (P.W. 7) were coming with paddy bundles from the above field and on movement when they reached in the field bf one Anandi Singh and others, accused Andhi having armed with bhala, Sohrai Yadav and Ishwar Yadav with farsa came there and started assaulting them. Accused Andhi Yadav assaulted him by bhala in his abdomen, Sahrai Yadav assaulted on his hand by farsa. Andhi Yadav further assaulted his son and Ishwar Yadav also assaulted him. Ishwar Yadav further assaulted Gopal Yadav and they became injured. On hulla raised by them, Kailu Yadav and others came at the place of occurrence and they saw the occurrence. Thereafter the accused persons escaped. The injured were brought to State Dispensary, Sherghati for treatment. There the statement of the informant was recorded by police and on that basis a case under Sections 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions. The trial proceeded. Charge under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the three accused. Charge was explained to them. They pleaded innocence and preferred to face the trial. 3. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication due to land dispute and the occurrence was also denied. They have also adduced evidence in their support. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses. Charge was explained to them. They pleaded innocence and preferred to face the trial. 3. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication due to land dispute and the occurrence was also denied. They have also adduced evidence in their support. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses. They are: P.W. 1 Deo Charan Yadav, P.W. 2 Sharawan Prasad, P.W. 3 Bal Kishun Yadav, P.W. 4. Kailu Yadav, P.W. 5 Ram Kishun Yadav, P.W. 6 Bhairu Yadav, P.W. 7 Gopal Yadav and P.W. 8 informant Mungeshwar Yadav. 5. The defence has examined two D.Ws. They are D.W.1 Chandeshwar Prasad and D.W. 2 Banwari Singh. They have proved some documents. 6. In this case, neither doctor nor Investigating Officer has been examined. P.W. 2 is a formal witness. 7. The informant P.W. 8 in his evidence has supported the fact as has been given in his fardbeyan that on the date of occurrence, the accused persons committed indiscriminate assault on him and other persons. Thereafter the injured were brought to Sherghati State Dispensary for treatment. This witness also stated that in course of treatment, his fardbeyan was recorded. 8. Other witnesses who are relatives and interested witnesses have supported the version of the informant. 9. The definite case of the prosecution is that the informant and other injured were brought to Sherghati State Dispensary for treatment but there is nothing on the record from which any inference could De drawn that the injured were treated at Sherghati State Dispensary. The doctor has not been examined and there is no explanation as to why he has not been examined. 10. Another factual aspect of the case is that the Investigating Officer has also not been, examined and in absence of non-examination of Investigating Officer; no contradiction could be taken out by the defence and due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer, adverse has to be taken against the prosecution and there is no explanation as to why Investigating Officer has not been examined. Any objective evidence could not be brought on the record due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer. 11. Any objective evidence could not be brought on the record due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer. 11. The defence of the appellants is that plot in question is in their exclusive possession and the informant has nothing to do with the same and they have taken the law in their hands as they wanted to take the possession of the said land forcibly. The defence witnesses have proved some documents to show that the land was of the appellants. The documents produced by the defence have been exhibited. 12. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the appellants. The doctor has also not been examined and the case is based on dialogue between two sides. The appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt because it has not been proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts that the appellants have committed overt act at the time of occurrence. 13. After analysing the entire evidence on the record, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside. The appellants are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.